Theme: Responsibility

Rolf, I shared this post (I share a lot of your posts) because the effect being described is altruistic punishment. And as such I viewed the study as perpetuating ‘what’s wrong’ with behavioral science: the tendency to seek a single frame of reference, denying the fact that while human variation in ability and expressed competence is genetic and developmental, human variation in valuation, bias, and particularly when regard to social and moral conflict originates in the mirror image of sex differences in cognition, with short term exclusive empathizing versus long term general systematizing. As such most of these signals in social media are due to the first time we can easily admix groups in moral conflict where normally we would separate by bias and interest, and express less altruistic punishment over our differences in moral valuation determined by cognitive sexual dimorphism.

One of the principles I teach, is that describing emotional reactions or intentions appeals to moral bias (excuse making), where economic explanation of all human behavior results in a value neutral assessment of costs – which is what causes all emotional reactions, since all emotions are always and everywhere reducible to change in the state of demonstrated interests (resources of some kind that the individual or group depend upon).

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

Reply addressees: @DegenRolf @ThruTheHayes